Father arrested and jailed for calling his biologically female daughter "she": this week in the strange death of Canada

[Metaphor]

People are often proscribed from discussing certain matters, <snip> outside of the necessary setting.

In family court, parents are often proscribed from discussing say, the particulars of their child's medical condition or therapy sessions outside of court or in the appropriate medical setting.

I didn't think my question was unclear. How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State? Is all of the above a way for you to say "yes, the gag order proscribes his language in private conversations?"

What this father is doing is attempting to impose his view and his will on someone else, against the direction of the court. He is deliberately causing his child unnecessary pain and suffering. Because he's having a hard time dealing with a reality he doesn't like.

The irony is certainly no longer breath-taking, though it's still a shock to the system. It is the court that has imposed its view and will on someone else, not the father.

It is even worse than if your parents were discussing their matchmaking efforts to help you find a wife and start giving them grandchildren. Because you are an adult and can speak for yourself and simply go to your own home if you are angry or upset. The child cannot escape.

It's the father who cannot escape - or indeed - can't even talk about his daughter, in private, to a friend.

 

[Metaphor]

OK, either you are stupider than you appear, or you are deliberately making this situation out to be outrageous despite knowing that it's not.

Either way, I am now bored with you, and so am unsubscribing from your increasingly hysterical and pointless thread about a person being punished in law for doing something that's both unlawful and immoral.

Have fun!

Since bilby cannot or will not answer my question, can anyone else?

How can the gag order be read in such a way that would mean CD's private conversations about his daughter are not being proscribed by the State?

Um, it would depend on the context of the gag order. While I am not familiar with Canadian law, I would doubt the gag order would extend to conversations about this with a therapist or a spiritual adviser.

I have quoted the relevant part of the gag order multiple times. I'm not asking anybody to defend the gag order. I am asking them how it can reasonably be read any other way.

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody asked you to explain about ordinary conversations.

I know. Sometimes, I do things without being asked.

The discussion is about conversations restricted by gag orders. Please try to focus instead of wandering off into straw man land.

Conversations restricted by gag orders are entirely within the category 'conversations'. To understand what a conversation with a gag order is like, you have to understand what an ordinary conversation is like first.

 

[laughing dog]

Um, it would depend on the context of the gag order. While I am not familiar with Canadian law, I would doubt the gag order would extend to conversations about this with a therapist or a spiritual adviser.

I have quoted the relevant part of the gag order multiple times. I'm not asking anybody to defend the gag order. I am asking them how it can reasonably be read any other way.

I did not defend it. But if it does not apply to conversations with therapist or spiritual advisors, then clearly your rigid interpretation is wrong.

 

[Metaphor]

Um, it would depend on the context of the gag order. While I am not familiar with Canadian law, I would doubt the gag order would extend to conversations about this with a therapist or a spiritual adviser.

I have quoted the relevant part of the gag order multiple times. I'm not asking anybody to defend the gag order. I am asking them how it can reasonably be read any other way.

I did not defend it. But if it does not apply to conversations with therapist or spiritual advisors, then clearly your rigid interpretation is wrong.

I suppose by "rigid" you mean "the plain meaning of the words".

I see nothing about exceptions for 'therapists', 'spiritual advisers', or close friends.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not defend it. But if it does not apply to conversations with therapist or spiritual advisors, then clearly your rigid interpretation is wrong.

I suppose by "rigid" you mean "the plain meaning of the words".

No, by rigid I mean a context-free interpretation by an unintended audience.

 

[Metaphor]

I did not defend it. But if it does not apply to conversations with therapist or spiritual advisors, then clearly your rigid interpretation is wrong.

I suppose by "rigid" you mean "the plain meaning of the words".

No, by rigid I mean a context-free interpretation by an unintended audience.

I have challenged anybody to show how my meaning was wrong. You appear to have implied 'spiritual advisers' and 'therapists' might be excepted, but that is evidence-free conjecture on your part.

 

[laughing dog]

No, by rigid I mean a context-free interpretation by an unintended audience.

I have challenged anybody to show how my meaning was wrong. You appear to have implied 'spiritual advisers' and 'therapists' might be excepted, but that is evidence-free conjecture on your part.

True. I pointed out why it might be wrong. I admit I am not a legal expert on Canadian law. Apparently, Canada is similar to the US in that there is patient-doctor and priest-penitent privilege(which goes beyond the Catholic church)/. That privilege suggests that the "other parties" would not include physicians or spiritual advisers. Perhaps there are exceptions. It would be nice if there was a Canadian lawyer or an expert in the law to help out. All of that suggests that in Canada, the term "other parties" is not understood as you think it ought to be.
On the other hand, you have provided no legal, or historical evidence to support your claim of a correct interpretation. Nice to see your implementation of a double standard - demanding evidence of others while producing none of your own.

 

[Metaphor]

No, by rigid I mean a context-free interpretation by an unintended audience.

I have challenged anybody to show how my meaning was wrong. You appear to have implied 'spiritual advisers' and 'therapists' might be excepted, but that is evidence-free conjecture on your part.

True. I pointed out why it might be wrong. I admit I am not a legal expert on Canadian law. Apparently, Canada is similar to the US in that there is patient-doctor and priest-penitent privilege(which goes beyond the Catholic church)/. That privilege suggests that the "other parties" would not include physicians or spiritual advisers. Perhaps there are exceptions. It would be nice if there was a Canadian lawyer or an expert in the law to help out. All of that suggests that in Canada, the term "other parties" is not understood as you think it ought to be.
On the other hand, you have provided no legal, or historical evidence to support your claim of a correct interpretation. Nice to see your implementation of a double standard - demanding evidence of others while producing none of your own.

On the contrary: a defined a 'third party' as anyone other than AB (first party) and his child (second party), with the ordinary meaning of 'third party'.

Now, even though I find other parts of the gag order unethical, the proscription on his language when having private conversations with third parties about his daughter I find the most objectionable, so I'd be glad to be wrong about it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Reminder: We don't know for sure that's what the gag order really says. All we have is the word of the guy that violated it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Reminder: We don't know for sure that's what the gag order really says. All we have is the word of the guy that violated it.

And even that reads like an Am I The Asshole post (re: reddit) where the clear answer is "You Are The Asshole".

 

[laughing dog]

True. I pointed out why it might be wrong. I admit I am not a legal expert on Canadian law. Apparently, Canada is similar to the US in that there is patient-doctor and priest-penitent privilege(which goes beyond the Catholic church)/. That privilege suggests that the "other parties" would not include physicians or spiritual advisers. Perhaps there are exceptions. It would be nice if there was a Canadian lawyer or an expert in the law to help out. All of that suggests that in Canada, the term "other parties" is not understood as you think it ought to be.
On the other hand, you have provided no legal, or historical evidence to support your claim of a correct interpretation. Nice to see your implementation of a double standard - demanding evidence of others while producing none of your own.

On the contrary: a defined a 'third party' as anyone other than AB (first party) and his child (second party), with the ordinary meaning of 'third party'.

We don't know what the cultural or historical usage in Canada. So, you still have no evidence that does not depend on your pedantry.

 

[Gun Nut]

You misspelled "Arsehole arrested and jailed for contempt of court after continuing to insult child in defiance of a court order to desist".

Refusing to utter State-mandated lies might be in defiance of a court, but it's a morally courageous act.

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You misspelled "Arsehole arrested and jailed for contempt of court after continuing to insult child in defiance of a court order to desist".

Refusing to utter State-mandated lies might be in defiance of a court, but it's a morally courageous act.

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

That's something I was thinking but just didn't say. I mean, it is creepy if you think about how he wants to control his teenager's body to keep her physical body as female as possible.

A lot of the white vans also have markings, too, like this one, for example:

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You misspelled "Arsehole arrested and jailed for contempt of court after continuing to insult child in defiance of a court order to desist".

Refusing to utter State-mandated lies might be in defiance of a court, but it's a morally courageous act.

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

He's standing up against the state. It's not as if that "little girl" on her own restrained him and deprived him of his freedom.

 

[Metaphor]

True. I pointed out why it might be wrong. I admit I am not a legal expert on Canadian law. Apparently, Canada is similar to the US in that there is patient-doctor and priest-penitent privilege(which goes beyond the Catholic church)/. That privilege suggests that the "other parties" would not include physicians or spiritual advisers. Perhaps there are exceptions. It would be nice if there was a Canadian lawyer or an expert in the law to help out. All of that suggests that in Canada, the term "other parties" is not understood as you think it ought to be.
On the other hand, you have provided no legal, or historical evidence to support your claim of a correct interpretation. Nice to see your implementation of a double standard - demanding evidence of others while producing none of your own.

On the contrary: a defined a 'third party' as anyone other than AB (first party) and his child (second party), with the ordinary meaning of 'third party'.

We don't know what the cultural or historical usage in Canada. So, you still have no evidence that does not depend on your pedantry.

Common usage is not pedantry.

 

[TomC]

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

He's standing up against the state. It's not as if that "little girl" on her own restrained him and deprived him of his freedom.

I've noticed how often posters in this thread resort to ridiculous strawman posts. But [MENTION=5430]Gun Nut[/MENTION]; did produce a doozy there.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

You misspelled "Arsehole arrested and jailed for contempt of court after continuing to insult child in defiance of a court order to desist".

Refusing to utter State-mandated lies might be in defiance of a court, but it's a morally courageous act.

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

She's 14, but his courage is in defying the State.

 

[laughing dog]

We don't know what the cultural or historical usage in Canada. So, you still have no evidence that does not depend on your pedantry.

Common usage is not pedantry.

Insisting that your interpretation of legalese employs common usage and insisting on what that common usage is, is just more pedantry. And all to avoid admitting you no evidence outside of your pedantry to support your interpretation as correct.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's courageous to stand up to a 13 year old biological little girl that identifies as a socially male little boy? OK, Kaptain Kid Kreeper... to the Kreep Mobile!! (/gets into an unmarked white van and slowly rolls away before turning on the engine).

He's standing up against the state. It's not as if that "little girl" on her own restrained him and deprived him of his freedom.

Everyone knows there are limits to free speech.